On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, wen.yang99@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > How do you think about to exchange the word “patch” by “code search” > > at affected places (and in the subject) then? > > Thanks, we‘ll fix it. > > >> In a function, for variables returned by calling of_find_device_by_node(), > > Do variables really get returned? > > The provided pointer should usually be stored somewhere. > > Thank you very much, we will consider this situation and submit a next version to fix it. I don't know what Markus is talking about here, so I'm not sure that a change is needed. > > > * Would you like to pick any software development challenges up around > > inter-procedural data flow (or even escape) analysis for the shown use case? > > We are very interested in doing this work, but currently coccinelle may > not support data flow analysis, and we hope to contribute a little. > > > Would you like to add a SPDX identifier? > > OK, we will add a SPDX identifierfix soon. > > >> + "ERROR: missing put_device;" > >Will change confidence considerations result in another fine-tuning for this message? > > Thank you, we will change "ERROR" to "WARNING". I think ERROR is fine. If it is a real positive than it is a real problem. Warning is for things that look ugly, but don't have any impact on the execution. julia > >> + + " call of_find_device_by_node on line " > >I find that such a split string literal can be unwanted. > > Thank you, we will fix it soon. > > >> + + " and return without releasing.") > >Possible rewording? > >+ + " but without a corresponding object release within this function.") > > Thanks, we will modify it according to your suggestion. > > Regards, > Wen
